The Inconvenient Truth About the State of Human Rights in Liberia

 

The US State Department submits annual Country Report on human rights practices called the Human Rights Report on all countries receiving its assistance and all United Nations Member States to the US Congress. I pay attention to the report for 2011 concerning the state of human rights in Liberia where the respect for the fundamental rights and inherent dignity of every person is a pre-requisite for sustaining peace. Egregious human rights abuses in Liberia over the years can be considered as both a main cause and a consequence of the civil war.

Unlike many reports that provide analysis, conclusion, and even ranking of countries on where they stand against others such as the UNDP Human Development Index or the Mo Ibrahim Index of African Governance, this report confines itself to statement of facts – of what has happened and what has not with regards to human rights situation. Stripped of commentary, reading this report one is left with the mundane, the things we already know. For example ‘Liberia is a constitutional republic with a bicameral National Assembly’ – this is a fact we all know. ‘The security forces reported to civilian authorities’ another statement of ordinary fact that taken alone says little.

However, if one takes what looks like ordinary statements of facts about things already known about Liberia, which surface year after year in the US State Department report, then one can begin to get a different appreciation about the aggregate weight that they have on the situation of human rights. These plain clear statements of the factual account of Liberia are often based on Liberia’s own constitution or legal provisions. Taken together they provide the promises to citizens inherent in the country’s constitution. They provide important indicators of what ought to be, of the pre-requisites and inherent guarantees that all Liberians, residents and visitors are entitled to and should expect of their government.

I take some time to list some of these statements, which are human rights benchmarks. They are grouped into two categories. Those statements of fact that represent the ideal of what things ought to be, and those that represent where things ought to change. On the former you will find such statements in the report: There were no reports of politically motivated disappearances. The constitution prohibits such practice as torture. The constitution prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention. The Ministry of Justice has responsibility for enforcing laws and maintaining order within the country. The constitution requires warrants to make arrests and provides that detainees either be charged or released within 48 hours. The law provides for the right of a defendant to receive an expeditious trial. The constitution and the law provide for an independent judiciary. There were no reports of political prisoners or detainees. The constitution prohibits arbitrary interference with privacy, family, home or correspondence. The constitution provides for freedom of speech and press. There were no government restrictions on access to the Internet. There were no government restrictions on academic freedom or cultural events. The constitution provides for the right of peaceful assembly. The constitution provides for the right of association.

Other ideal situation noted in the report include: the constitution provides for freedom of movement within the country, foreign travel, emigration, and repatriation. The law provides for the granting of asylum or refugee status. The law provides citizens the right to change their government peacefully. The constitution prohibits discrimination based on ethnic background, sex, and creed, place of origin, disability, ethnic origin or political opinion. Women and men enjoy the same legal status. Women can inherit land and property, receive equal pay for equal work, own and manage businesses.

From reading the list of positive statements above, one would find that the safeguards for all people’s rights within the constitution and law are significant. However, there is this albatross – the discrimination on the basis of race – noted in the constitution that should have no place in modern Liberia. Also the report highlighted a number of areas where the absence of legal provisions undermines human rights such as ‘the law does not provide criminal penalties for official corruption’. The report also noted the lack of an independent Ombudsman to hear complaint regarding human rights violations.

It is in the practical aspects of the implementation of the constitution and law of Liberia that lay the inconvenient truth of the situation of human rights. The US State Department report claims ‘among the most serious human rights abuses were those tied to justice: judicial inefficiency and corruption, lengthy pretrial detention; denial of due process, and harsh prison conditions; violence against women and children, including rape and domestic violence, and child labour were serious problems’.

The report further noted that other important human rights abuses included ‘unlawful deprivation of life, mob killings, reported ritualistic killings and trial by ordeal; police abuse, harassment and intimidation of detainees; arbitrary arrest and detention; official corruption, domestic human trafficking; racial and ethnic discrimination’. In addition, ‘impunity was a serious problem despite government attempts to prosecute and punish officials’.

One can see two emerging deficits that are the hindrance to the advancement of human rights in Liberia – those that relate to the constitution with regards to the charge of racial discrimination and those that relate to the practical application of or failure to act on the relevant constitutional provisions. On the latter, the failings identified in the US State Department report for 2011 are many.

In Liberia, ‘police officers and other security officials abused, harassed and intimidated persons, particularly during attempts to extort money on the streets.’

In Liberia, ‘despite being illegal, the practice of trial by ordeal, which involves actions such as the placement of a heated metal object on a suspect’s body or the insertion of an extremity into hot oil to determine whether the defendant is innocent, reported continued in rural areas’

In Liberia, ‘inadequate provisions for food, sanitation, ventilation, temperature, lighting, basic and emergency medical care, and potable water contributed to harsh and life-threatening conditions in the country’s 15 prisons and detention centres.’

In Liberia, ‘men and women were held in separate cells in larger facilities but were held together in some counties and cities that had only one detention cell.’

In Liberia, the national police ‘remained poorly equipped, ineffective, and slow to respond to criminal activity’

In Liberia, ‘the lack of a crime laboratory and other investigative tools hampered police investigations and evidence gathering, which in turn hampered prosecutors’ cases’.

In Liberia, ‘an estimate 79 percent of prisoners were pretrial detainees. The length of time detainees were held in pretrial detention varied, but average three to six months’

In Liberia, ‘in some cases the length of pre-trial detention exceeded the maximum length of sentence that could be imposed for the alleged crime.’

In Liberia, ‘jurors were also subject to influence and corrupt practices, which undermined their effectiveness and neutrality’.

In Liberia, ‘defendants enjoy a presumption of innocence and have the right to an attorney and to confront or question witnesses against them, present evidence and witnesses on their behalf, and appeal adverse decisions, but many of these protections were not available to defendants who could not pay bribes or afford an attorney’

In Liberia, ‘some journalist practice self-censorship…some journalist accepted payments to publish articles and did not check the accuracy of the facts.’

In Liberia, the ‘Liberia National Police and Bureau of Immigration officers occasionally subjected travelers to arbitrary searches and petty extortion at checkpoints’

In Liberia, ‘the state is highly centralized, and the head of state appoints county superintendents. Local government has no independent revenue base and relied entirely on the central government for funds. As a result there were very limited government services outside Monrovia’.

In Liberia, ‘officials engaged in corrupt practices with impunity. Low pay levels for the civil service, minimal job training, and few court convictions exacerbated official corruption and a culture of impunity’

In Liberia, ‘although it is illegal to discriminate against persons with physical and mental disabilities, such persons did not enjoy equal access to government services.’

Where does Liberia stand on these issues raised in the human rights report? In an article in the Liberian Times of June 18, 2012 a headline read ‘GOL Slams U.S. Human Rights Report – Says Misrepresentation Mar it’. The article referred to a letter sent by Liberia’s Minister of Justice to the Political Affairs Counselor at the US Embassy accredited new Monrovia.

Liberia could have also said look at other countries, such as Zimbabwe where there are politically motivated abductions and China where there are certain restrictions on press freedom and internet access and say the situation outlined in the State Department report about Liberia is not any worse. It can also say, look at the country immediate past where there were political prisoners, arbitrary arrest and detention, extra-judicial killings; look at the period of the brutal civil war where the country was a killing field and all kinds of human rights violations were the norm. This kind of reaction will take the country nowhere. All report of human rights violations should be taken seriously and should set the basis for soul searching and concrete actions. The steps that should be taken now depend on where Liberia intends to be – a country reconciled, a peace with itself and known for the respect for all the human rights of all its citizens.

No amount of international help can change this situation. The onus is on Liberians and their institutions – the Government as the key duty bearer and citizens’ organizations to provide the demand side necessary to make respect for all human rights for all Liberians, residents and visitors the guarding mantra for all state policies and programmes.

 By Charles Tye Lawrence